IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.39213 of 2021 Narayan Parija …. Petitioner Mr. M. Pati, Advocate -versus- Chairman, Odisha Gramya Bank, BBSR and Another …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Nanda, Adv. CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 18.02.2026 16. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 19.07.2021, so passed by the Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-11. Vide the said order, while disposing the Disciplinary Proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide Charge-sheet dated 20.08.2020, petitioner was imposed with the following punishment:- “Reduction of two increments in time scale of pay which shall have bearing on your terminal benefits.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner while in service, the proceeding in question was initiated against him vide Charge-sheet dated 20.08.2020 p. 2 p. 2 under Annexure-4. In the said proceeding, petitioner not only filed his reply under Annexure-5 but also participated in the enquiry after appointment of the Enquiry Officer vide order under Annexure-6. 4.1. It is contended that while in service, petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2020. It is contended that even though petitioner during pendency of the proceeding retired on 30.11.2020, but while disposing the proceeding, the Disciplinary Authority-Opp. Party No.2 imposed the punishment, which is not permissible in view of the provisions contained under Regulation 39 read with Regulation 45 of the Odisha Gramya Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulation, 2010 (in short “Regulation”). 4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that since no such punishment of reduction to a lower stage was passed by the Disciplinary Authority without having such a order of reduction to a lower stage, reduction of 2 (two) increments in time Scale of Pay could not have been passed in view of the provisions contained under Regulation 39(1)(b)(i). Regulation 39(1)(b)(i) reads as follows:- “39(1)(b)(i) Major Penalties: (i) save as provided in item (v) of clause (a) of sub- regulation (1) of regulation 39, reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether or not the officer shall earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on expiry of such period the reduction shall p. 3 p. 3 or shall not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay.” 4.3. It is also contended that since petitioner by the time the punishment was imposed had already retired, no reduction in increment could have been directed. 4.4. Making all these submission, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order of punishment needs interference of this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Bank on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed. It is contended that petitioner while continuing in service, he was placed under suspension vide letter dated 22.11.2019. However, considering the request made by the petitioner, petitioner was reinstated in his services vide letter dated 27.02.2020. 5.1. However, in the said order of reinstatement, it was clearly indicated that even though petitioner was released from suspension, but the proceeding will continue. It is further contended that though petitioner during pendency of the proceeding, retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2020, but in view of the provisions contained under Regulation 45 of the aforesaid Regulation, there was no bar to continue with the proceeding even after retirement of an employee. p. 4 p. 4 5.2. It is also contended that after conducting the proceeding in accordance with law and by following the principle of natural justice, Opp. Party No.2 disposed of the proceeding vide order dated 19.07.2021 vide order under Annexure-11. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also rejected by the Appellate Authority- Opp. Party No.1 vide order under Annexure-13. 5.3. It is accordingly contended that since the proceeding has been conducted in accordance with law and by following the principle of natural justice and such an order of punishment has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the same. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner while in service, the proceeding in question was initiated against him vide charge-sheet dated 20.08.2020 under Annexure-4. After conclusion of the Enquiry and by issuing the show-cause, petitioner was imposed with the punishment of reduction of 2 (two) increments in the time Scale of Pay, which shall have bearing on the terminal benefits under Major Penalty as per Regulation 39(1)(b)(i) of the Regulation and suspension period was treated as not spent on duty. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority-Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure- 11, has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order under Annexure-13. p. 5 p. 5 6.1. This Court after going through the provisions contained under Regulation-39(1)(b)(i) of the Regulation, is of the view that since while disposing the proceeding, no order was passed, reducing the rank of the petitioner to a lower stage, in absence of any such order being passed by the Disciplinary Authority in reducing the rank, no order could have been passed in directing for reduction of 2 (two) increments in the time scale of pay. 6.2. Since the impugned order of punishment so passed under Annexure-11 and confirmed vide order under Annexure-13, has been passed not in conformity with the provisions contained under Rule-39(1)(b)(i) of the Regulation and no such order of reduction in rank is enclosed to the counter affidavit so filed by the Bank, this Court is of the view that the punishment imposed on the petitioner could not have been passed being contrary to the Regulation. It is also the view of this Court that after retirement of the petitioner on 30.11.2020, no such order could have been passed in reducing the increment. 6.3. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash order of punishment so passed vide order under Annexure-11 confirmed vide order under Annexure-13. While quashing both the orders, this Court allows the Writ Petition. 6.4. Consequential follow up action be taken to extend the benefit as due and admissible in view of the quashing of order of punishment in favour of the petitioner within a p. 6 p. 6 period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev